No Greens = No Iraq War

[JHBowden]

Many are putatively upset that a few dozen Democrats (Harkin, Clinton, Edwards, Schumer, etc.) voted to give Bush leverage against Hussein. Despite differences between the two parties on issues such as health care, social security, education, taxation, the environment, capital punishment, trade, gun control, abortion, and affirmative action, many come here to insist that given the IWR votes of Kerry and Edwards, we can allow Bush to appoint the next three Supreme Court justices.

While the few proponents of this few are vociferous, they are clearly mistaken.

First of all, let us examine what the Gore = Bushlite rhetoric got us in Florida. Nader grabbed 90K+ votes in Florida. If even a fraction of those had went to Gore, Bush would have lost. Does anybody seriously believe Gore would have invaded Iraq? I think not. While the Greens were not "the" cause of the Florida debacle (there were many additional factors working against us), their Democrats = Republicans rhetoric was sufficient to put Bush in the White House. If that isn't Bush-enabling, I don't know what is.

Secondly, during October 2002, Hussein wasn't letting inspectors in his country, and many voted to give the executive branch the leverage needed to address this problem. While certainly the right thing to do, one could guess at the bad consequences -- I thought it was like giving a drunk the keys to my car. Nevertheless, I can't think of many Democrats who would have pulled out the inspectors we worked so hard to get into Iraq and occupied the country for no reason. Despite moderate rhetoric during campaign seasons, Gore, Kerry, and Edwards didn't fall under this category.

So next time any of you guys sitting on the fringe (or pretending to be sitting on the fringe) want to call someone a Bush-enabler, look in the mirror. There are sharp differences on the issues between the parties, the "Bushlite" rhetoric from the far left in 2000 was dead wrong, and the "Democrats support arbitrarily conquering nations" slogans are unwarranted. I'm not taking this crap laying down.

[JHBowden]

1. Nobody wants to get squashed?

Just "hit-and-run" nonsense? You gotta be kidding me.

[theivoryqueen]

3. well, the other thread was locked, too.

looks like you are the winner. Maybe it's the title. I understand your objections and agree with many of your points, but as several DUers in the other thread mentioned, it is prime time for those who would divide and conquer. Debate is great as long as it isn't intended to discourage participation or otherwise drive off/out democratic voters. I doubt the republican election machine would tolerate any dissent from it's party members - we aren't them, true. But they have a strategy to keep all in step. If we are too divisive, we will not be able to best their discipline.

[Sterling]

2. Got one locked and started another?

Go tell the Blacks who were robbed of their votes about Nader and how he is responsible for Bush. Tell the CBC members who begged one Senator to sign their petition to challenge the results based on the crime that took place in Florida.

Would Gore have invaded Iraq? I used to think not but it seems that the Democratic party in general is not oppsed to the Iraq war only critiacl of how it is being managed.

Do you have some sort of statement from Gore that he opposes the War in Iraq?

A lot happened between 2k and Iraq as well and all of our two candidates voted to give Bush the authorty to invade Iraq?
Or did they "sort of support it" Or maybe they "sort of opposed" it?


Or maybe they are chameleons that are all things to all people?

When they had a chance to register their opposition on the floor of the Senate they took a pass and voted to give the authority to people we all knew were not to be trusted the OK to start a war.

Bushes agenda was obvious to most intelligent people who are not right-wingers. Even to the RWers it was obvious but they are comfortable with starting a war of conquest and willing to be dishonest to achieve it. Why was this agenda not clear to Kerry or Edwards?

The good thing for people who insist on excusing or ignoring this reality is that Kerry and Edwards will benefit from the work of braver people like Michael Moore and the “far left” who have tirelessly educated the public about the crimes of the Neo-cons.

Just remember we expect results and after Kerry and Edwards are elected they too will be held accountable by those of us who are paying attention and put country over party loyalty.

[JHBowden]

5. You can do better.

Well, maybe not.

I said that a Nader run was sufficient to put Bush in office. While Jeb's efforts against blacks were disgusting, this ignores the point.

Gore gave several speeches before the invasion denouncing the rush to war. You're not seriously going to maintain your 2000 mantra of Gore being "bush-lite" now, eh? You'll lose pretty fast.

Bush had the votes to get the leverage with Iraq whether Kerry and Edwards voted for it or not; their vote was neither sufficient nor necessary for the occupation. The real question is whether they would have pulled the inspectors out and invaded a country; all of the evidence indicates Kerry on principle supports war only as a last resort.

Given the massive differences of the issues, it is hard to explain how Nader couldn't be working for Bush. If the consequences of voting for a trivial resolution that would have passed anyway matter to you, why don't the consequences of Nader's actions matter? A contradiction exists.

[durutti]

4. *Most* Democrats supported the war. n/t

[GreenArrow]

9. "*Most* Democrats supported the war. "

which, frankly given what was suspected/known then, and continues to be verified now, does not speak highly of most Democrats.

[Jacobin]

6. The way DU is trying to frame the debate is disingenuous

Kerry is going to have to deal with Iraq. It will not go away. How he deals with it is supremely important. Particularly to those of us who have draft age children.

To state one truism (if Nader voters had voted for Gore we wouldn't be in Iraq) ignores the issue and attempts to besmirch those democrats who are genuinely concerned about how Kerry will handle IraqNam.

The problem will not go away. It needs to be addressed.

[kiahzero]

11. No kidding it won't go away

Bringing the troops home now wouldn't make it go away either, but some seem to think so.

[GreenArrow]

7. by the same token, MORE Greens = No Iraq war

.

[Forkboy]

8. Nader has become the Dems AL Quada

[quaker bill]

10. Well said.

Anyone who still believes Bush = Gore = Kerry has clearly not been playing attention.

[welshTerrier2]

12. give it a rest !!

here, i'll give you a clue ... maybe then you can take it from there ...

we NEED every vote we can get ... how about you stop whining about the past and find a way to attract Green voters to support Kerry and Edwards ...

do you honestly believe "not taking this crap lying down" is a good way to convince those on the Green-Dem fence to join us?

[bvar22]

13. This logic...

...has been tortured worse than an inmate of Abu-Gharib.